Common Enterprise Development Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
264449879
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2017–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2016, Form 990-EZ 2018
Location
Mandan, ND, USA
Phone
7016633886
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development

Reported finances

Revenue
$0
Expenses
$374
Assets
$869

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DWIGHT ENOCKSON (President)
  • BARBARA SCHMITT (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • CHERYL KARY (Executive Dir.)
  • DWIGHT ENOCKSON (President)
  • BARBARA SCHMITT (Vice President)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Promote rural economic development through research and technical assistance.

What it reported doing in 2018

Outreach & Technical Assistanc (Bush Foundation) - CEDC is committed to assisting new and emerging cooperatives with organizational development, strategic planning, administrative services, grant writing, equity drives, feasibility studies, financing packages, and board director training. The impact of CEDC services extends to members, rural organizations, Indian reservations, and others, who will gain higher prices for their products, lower marketing costs, and access to capital. This year we worked to: Present the cooperative business model to individuals or communities seeking solutions to market place failures. Share the cooperative model with communities that could benefit from its application Develop and implement unique training and technical assistance for high-poverty areas such as Indian reservations and border towns adjacent to reservations

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: Limited
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.32; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -47% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -67.2% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 4 of 5 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2017 to 2018
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part I part ii net assets crosscheck did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.